Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Vera Neplenbroek
dblp:379/6883
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 43% Language models and text generation · 40% Representation and self-supervised learning · 17% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
1.9 | 2 | 2026 | One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026 Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model › large language model adaptation
personalization |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › prompting
persona prompting |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › embedding learning › entity representation learning
user embedding |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
prompt variation analysis · 1.0representation steering · 0.9linear probe · 0.9controlled synthetic conversation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM PersonalizationabstractPersonalization of LLMs by sociodemographic subgroup often improves user experience, but can also introduce or amplify biases and unfair outcomes across groups.Prior work has employed so-called personas, sociodemographic user attributes conveyed to a model, to study bias in LLMs by relying on a single cue to prompt a persona, such as user names or explicit attribute mentions.This disregards LLM sensitivity to prompt variation and the rarity of some cues in real interactions (external validity).We compare six commonly used persona cues across seven open and proprietary LLMs on four writing and advice tasks.While cues are overall highly correlated, they produce substantial variance in responses across personas that can change findings on persona-induced differences and bias.We therefore caution against claims based on single persona cues, especially when they are overly explicit and have low external validity. Franziska Weeber, Vera Neplenbroek, Jan Batzner, Sebastian Padó |
ACL (1) | 2 |
| 2025 | Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit PersonalizationabstractGenerative Large Language Models (LLMs) infer user's demographic information from subtle cues in the conversation -a phenomenon called implicit personalization.Prior work has shown that such inferences can lead to lower quality responses for users assumed to be from minority groups, even when no demographic information is explicitly provided.In this work, we systematically explore how LLMs respond to stereotypical cues using controlled synthetic conversations, by analyzing the models' latent user representations through both model internals and generated answers to targeted user questions.Our findings reveal that LLMs do infer demographic attributes based on these stereotypical signals, which for a number of groups even persists when the user explicitly identifies with a different demographic group.Finally, we show that this form of stereotypedriven implicit personalization can be effectively mitigated by intervening on the model's internal representations using a trained linear probe to steer them toward the explicitly stated identity.Our results highlight the need for greater transparency and control in how LLMs represent user identity. Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández |
EMNLP | 1 |